21 Mar 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat is a debatable point (and an interesting one).
Does this mean that higher caste humans will increase in number and lower caste ones decrease?
If reincarnation works correctly, humans should gradually approach perfection - this is not the case.
Anyone have an opinion on why this is (arguing the point from a "carnastionist" point of view, rather than dismissing the idea completely).
21 Mar 05
Originally posted by AlcraI'm not sure why you think this cannot be the case (whether or not reincarnation actually suggests it).
If reincarnation works correctly, humans should gradually approach perfection - this is not the case.
The "gradual change" would be observable only over several generations as people are re-incarnated. Measuring how "perfect" (I assume you're talking spiritually/morally here) humans are now is a difficult task. Measuring it for the past is not possible for you (yet...).
At a guess, I'd say you were "better" than when you were living in caves...
MÅ¥HÅRM
PS. I could add something regarding your future, having come from then, but that kind of information has too high a chance of creating a paradox.
21 Mar 05
Originally posted by Mayharm(
I'm not sure why you think this cannot be the case (whether or not reincarnation actually suggests it).
The "gradual change" would be observable only over several generations as people are re-incarnated. Measuring how "perfect" (I assume you're talking spiritually/morally here) humans are [b]now is a difficult task. Measuring it for the past is ...[text shortened]... having come from then, but that kind of information has too high a chance of creating a paradox.[/b]
Firstly, let me state: This is NOT a belief of mine, but is interesting to debate nonetheless. Should a carnationist want to take over the "pro" argument, I will be happy to move to the "con" side!
)
I did not state that it COULD not be the case, but that is WAS not the case (at least from my perception).
Mankind as a whole has seemed to degenerate morally over the last half century.
This may be as a result of a "forced" upward re-incarnation cycle - as mankind causes the extinction of lesser species, so more souls need to be born human (be they ready for this "last" step or not).
21 Mar 05
Originally posted by Alcra50 years is still fairly small fry in terms of human generations. Would it really be surprising if this morality "value" can waver slightly in the short term?
(
Firstly, let me state: This is NOT a belief of mine, but is interesting to debate nonetheless. Should a carnationist want to take over the "pro" argument, I will be happy to move to the "con" side!
)
I did not state that it COULD not be the case, but that is WAS not the case (at least from my perception).
Mankind as a whole has seemed to degene ...[text shortened]... species, so more souls need to be born human (be they ready for this "last" step or not).
You're also assuming that the earth is a limitation...nothing about reincarnation suggests that it need be limited to just the earth. All the animals humanity is currently killing off may well be re-incarnated on an alien planet for all you know.
MÅ¥HÅRM
21 Mar 05
Originally posted by MayharmAgreed - 50 years is very short. However, it can be argued that manking has been reducing in morality for centuries - this is a debate for another thread.
50 years is still fairly small fry in terms of human generations. Would it really be surprising if this morality "value" can waver slightly in the short term?
You're also assuming that the earth is a limitation...nothing about reincarnation suggests that it need be limited to just the earth. All the animals humanity is currently killing off may well be re-incarnated on an alien planet for all you know.
MÅ¥HÅRM
As for the "alien planet" hypothesis, I would suggest we discard it. Adding it to the debate will introduce far too many variables. An example, would be an alien civilization where all higher life forms are wiped out (disaster, war or whatever), leaving a vast pool of "souls" that need to go somewhere. In a civilization of 100 billion individuals (again a guess), these would likely have to "de-incarnate" to lesser life forms, distorting the move forward. (Unless one introduces a holding room - is this called the gaff in religion?).
21 Mar 05
Originally posted by AlcraFirstly yes, the up/down of humanity's moral progress is a subject for another thread.
As for the "alien planet" hypothesis, I would suggest we discard it. Adding it to the debate will introduce far too many variables.
However in response to the above quote, it was your question that brought in these variables... I was actually trying to point out the futility of applying physical laws to the metaphysical concept of reincarnation, not to argue the variables themselves.
Even if we accept that souls are affected by physical laws (which is what your cause and effect statement: "...extinction of lesser species, so more souls need to be born human..." implies) you still have no basis for assuming the effects are bound/locked in space/time...
MÅ¥HÅRM
21 Mar 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo, I said extenuating circumstances need to be discussed when it is a sentient being. Souls don't make the claim of having existed forever or having created the universe.
If I remember correctly, you believe sentient beings don't need to be caused, right?
21 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusIn the Christian belief is the soul not that part of God which resides in us all? So in essence, yes they did/do.
No, I said extenuating circumstances need to be discussed when it is a sentient being. Souls don't make the claim of having existed forever or having created the universe.
Nyxie